HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1998 Playfield Agenda and MinutesSa ra.~- ode CQ ~so,'~-.)~_
Meeting Agenda ~~+I-d3~~.
Meeting Type: Task Force Meeting #3
Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998
Time Allotment: 4:00-6:00 Project Name:
Meeting Location: Community Room-- Project Ref. No.:
Saratoga Community Library
13650 Saratoga Ave.
Facilitator: Jay Beals
Recorder: Jeff Kreps
Time Keeper: Allison Yamamoto
C p ttit IN1 .
BEALS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
~N~
City of Saratoga, Park
Development
98-12
Meeting Context: Needs and desires for each of the project sites have been gathered. Now, we
are entering the phase in which projects are prioritized and assigned costs--on
a preliminary basis--and lease/maintenance agreements are developed.
Meeting Purpose: 1) Review proposed modification/development of selected sites;
2) Present and discuss associated costs;
3) Begin discussion regarding partnering and tentative lease/maintenance
agreements;
4) Begin discussion on field maintenance concepts;
• Intended Results: 1) An understanding of design options and resulting construction costs
involved for project sites;
2) Prioritized list of sites to be developed/renovated;
3) Prioritized list of projects to be undertaken at each of the sites on the
priority list;
4) Tentative partnership agreements for development and maintenance.
INTRODUCTION
A. Welcome (Barbara Zeitman-Olsen)
B. Review Ground Rules
C. Questions on information contained in the pre-meeting packet (City and BLAi)
SITE REVIEW
A. Overview of options and ramifications
B. Presentation of each site:
1. Potential maintenance levels associated with site changes.
2. Prioritization of project sites;
3. Prioritization of projects at each sife.
III. DISCUSSION OF LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
A. Partnership opportunities within the above context ;
•
1\Server\projectsUobs98198-t2 Saratoga ConsuftinglTF#3MtgAgendadraft.doc
T`NO NORTH MARKET • FIFTH F!_~~~~R • ~aN JC~E ~A tit' ; PHONE 40F3-24..1202 FFa~ X105-^~3'-0!65 LIC NC 150-1
Meeting Agenda For: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: Saratoga Park Development
Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 Project Ref. No.: BLAi 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• IV. NEXT STEPS
A. To be undertaken before the next meeting:
1. BLAi will provide:
a) Meeting minutes;
b) Summaries of prioritized project sites-with associated costs;
c) Summary of lease/maintenance agreement meetings with potential
partners;
d) Draft agenda for Task Force meeting #4.
V. NEXT MEETING TASK FORCE MEETING #4
A. Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998
B. Time: 4:00-6:00 PM
C. Location: Community Room, Saratoga Community Library
D. Purposes:
1. Review possible structure of:
a) Construction schedules;
b) Partnership Agreements;
c) Lease/Maintenance Agreements.
•
End of Agenda
•
11ServerlprojectsUobs9819&12Saratoga ConsuRinglTF#3MtgAgendadraft.doc 2
B E A L S L A N D J C A P E A R C H [ T E C T L R E, [ N C.
BEALS
•
•
•
Meeting Report
Date:
8.26.98
Meeting Type: Task Force Mtg. #3 Project Name:
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.:
Meeting Time: 4:00-6:00 PM
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
From: Jeff Kreps Attendees:
Copy to: ®All Attendees
Absent Task Force members
File
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
INC
City of Saratoga Park Development
98-12
City Council Representatives,
City Staff, User Group Repre-
sentatives, BLAi staff
This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be
acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting.
Meeting Context: Needs and desires for each of the project sites have been gathered. Now, we
are entering the phase in which projects are prioritized and assigned costs--on
a preliminary basis--and lease/maintenance agreements are developed.
Meeting Purpose: 1) Review proposed modification/development of selected sites;
2) Present and discuss associated costs;
3) Begin discussion regarding partnering and tentative lease/maintenance
agreements;
4) Begin discussion on field maintenance concepts.
Intended Results: 1) An understanding of design options and resulting construction costs
involved for project sites;
2) Prioritized list of sites to be developed/renovated:
3) Prioritized list of projects to be undertaken at each of the sites on the
priority list;
4) Tentative partnership agreements for development and maintenance.
Note: Action items resulting from this meeting are listed at the end of this report.
INTRODUCTION
A. After a general welcome, the floor was opened up to answer any questions that might
have arisen regarding the information contained in the pre-meeting packet. While there
were no specific questions, most of the members felt that they needed more time to
study the maintenance and budget-related numbers presented.
SITE REVIEW
A. Jay presented an overview of five development levels (for those not present at the
meeting, see the enclosed summary) which outlined, in detail, various possibilities for
each of the sites being considered. This summary included a discussion of what is
done at each level, how long it takes, and what the maintenance benefits are.
F:1Jobs98\9&12 Saratoga ConsuRinglTask Force tk31TFJa•3Meeting Report.doc
TbV~~ ~^d~iNrH MAF?I<ET • FIFTH FLOOR • ,SAN JO :E CA • 9511 3 PHGNE »0`i-_'97 ~:;>~;~ • Fr,t ;~~~g.?g; 1)167 LIC NO 1534
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• It was pointed out that a given development "level" might or might not be appropriate for
a given site, depending on many factors, including the intended use of the site, absolute
need for the field, and the recommendation of the Task Force, itself.
A consideration in the acceptance and planning of these projects is how long the field
will be out of service. This will impact scheduling and will increase the load on other
facilities in the interim. This problem will need to be accounted for when prioritizing
projects and scheduling users during the affected seasons.
Also discussed were very general costs associated with the various development
options. It was stressed that the figures were not absolute--and couldn't be--until
specific sites had been selected for detailed examination. However, the costs
presented were sufficiently accurate to reflect the margin of change between the various
development levels. For instance, the main difference (in initial cost and long-term
maintenance expectations) between options 2a and 2b is the additional step of
replacing the irrigation system.
The related issue of maintenance was also presented in broad terms and directly linked
to the above development options. The primary point in this discussion was that,
generally speaking, more money spent to increase the quality of the playing surface will
result in lower maintenance costs in the long run. Leaving the fields as they are,
maintenance costs will surely rise over time because of the extra work required just to
keep the fields at an adequate safety level and playable condition.
Another recommendation made by Jay was for the separation of uses between the
project sites whenever possible. This would mean that soccer, only, might be played on
a given field, while baseball was the exclusive user of another field. Jay talked about
the additional maintenance costs associated with trying to maintain a field where two
different user groups were present. Similarly, the opportunity to give fields a few months
of "rest" between playing seasons has been shown to greatly benefit the quality of the
playing surface. (A local example of this practice is at Redwood Middle School, where
the upper field is closed for the summer months in an attempt to rejuvenate the playing
surface.)
For the above recommendation to work, there would have to be a "global balance"
maintained between all the different users, and a balance created between the number
of facilities available for each of the groups to use. This was the basis for Jay's project
recommendations, and it is hoped that the Task Force will take this type of "balance
„•
question into consideration as they begin to recommend projects. (One additional way
to improve the overall user/site balance in the City is through an efficient scheduling
system. Such a system might fall under the jurisdiction of aNot-for-profit 501-(c) (3)
formed by representatives of the various user groups-see discussion below.)
Mr. Richard McCann, Deputy Superintendent, stated that Campbell Union School
District would prefer multi-use on their fields. He also reported that none of the bond
money recently received could be used for field upgrades.
• It was noted that not all Task Force members were in support of the idea of separation
of uses. The main concern was, since there is already a shortage of fields, wouldn't
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuttinglTask Force #31TF#3Meeting Report.doc 2
B F: :\ L S L \ N D S C A P E ,4 R C }i ! T F C' T L' R li. 1 ~; C
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• separating the users simply create additional stress on the system-even with the
addition of new fields? Additionally, would the reduction in maintenance costs be
enough to warrant the exclusive use of a field by one group? No consensus was
reached on these issues, but their consideration will be very important to any long-term
development/maintenance recommendations put forth by the Task Force.
B. A site-by-site presentation was made outlining general costs associated with a given
development level recommended for each site. It was stressed that the figures were
"ballpark" and that the recommended development level was just that-a
recommendation. The development levels and associated costs at each site are up for
discussion, and need to be weighed as components of the "whole"-the "whole" being
the Park Development Project and its budget, in general. For instance, if a certain site
is deemed "crucial" to the overall plan, but its inclusion is dependent upon a lower
development cost at one or more other sites, then the various "parts" must be weighed
against each other, and concessions might have to be made. (Hence the importance of
involving all affected parties.)
What follows is a brief summary of the discussion of each site (in the order in which they
were presented), followed by a prioritized list of project sites generated at the end of the
meeting.
1) Congress Springs: It was recommended that this site be upgraded
(development level 3) and that it be converted into a "baseball-only" facility.
The dual use of the site has caused maintenance costs to rise. The
development at level 3 would provide a superior playing surface which would
be easier to maintain in the Tong run. The separation of the users would also
reduce the burden on the field, improving playing surface quality. The
upgrade cost would include money for facility renovation as well-items such
as higher foul ball fences, backstop upgrades, new irrigation, etc. (As
mentioned above, the separation of user groups onto different sites was
agreed to "in theory," but the shortage of fields in the City of Saratoga
prevented the Task Force members from committing completely to this idea.)
Rough costs associated with this project are $850,000.
2) Blue Hills/Azule: This site was presented as an opportunity for the City and
the Cupertino Union School District to partner in the development of a
"soccer only" complex. It was shown that it is possible to relocate all of the
soccer fields currently in use at Congress Springs to the School site itself-
and by using the additional land potentially available on the Azule site,
several more -arge, game-size fields could be provided. Such alarge-scale
project would necessitate the inclusion of additional parking facilities, etc. to
help assuage the concerns of the neighbors. All members agreed that
development of the entire site was desirable. The necessary development
levels for this site are 3 and 4, for a rough cost estimate of $1,300,000.
3) Kevin Moran Park: Considered by itself, or as a part of an overall development
• including Blue Hills/Azule, it was shown that there is sufficient space to
create either a soccer or baseball-only facility. There is the potential for 2-3
large soccer fields, or 3 baseball fields. Additionally, the small orchard at the
F Uobs98\98-12 Saratoga ConsuRinglTask Force #31TF#3Meeting Report.doc 3
B E .~ L S L. > V I) S C A P E A R C FI I I' E C ~ 1; R E. I N C.
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• southern end has development potential as a parking facility. Though there
is much potential at this site, it was acknowledged by Task Force members
that there is a great deal of community resistance to doing anything to this
site that would change its focus from that of a passive, neighborhood park,
into an active facility with accompanying traffic, noise, etc. Requiring
development levels 3 and 4, the rough costs for this project are: $600,000
for the fields; and $250,000 for the parking lot.
4) Foothill School: There were two primary development options presented for
this site. The first was for minimal field renovation (level 2a) and the
construction of a more formal practice field/backstop facility. The rough cost
for this option totaled $95,000. The second option is made in response to
the inefficient use of the current available space and entails moving one of
the fields to a new location, upgrading the two remaining fields and providing
the new practice facility. The rough cost for this option is $475,000. It was
acknowledged by the primary user of this site (Los Gatos/Saratoga Girls
Softball) that, though the current fields are not in the best shape, the more
pressing items are "amenity" upgrades-items such as storage, batting
cages, drinking fountains, snack-shack facilities, etc. A level 3 or 4
development project would include many of these items, but a minimal field
renovation would not-the items would have to be acquired separately.
5) Marshall Lane: This site is considered to be key in the overall City-wide
balance between user groups. It is the main facility for Quito Little League
and for this section of the town. The site is comparatively small, but with
some re-designing could provide much opportunity. Campbell School District
has expressed its tentative approval to move ahead with plans that the Task
Force might recommend. Given all this, three proposals were made. The
first was to simply do a level 2b renovation to the turf area; the rough
associated cost is $100,000. The second proposal adds two new formal
baseball fields to the site, in addition to the renovation; approximate cost is
$180,000. The final option recommends complete re-design of the site,
including relocation/expansion of parking, new fields, re-grading, etc. The
cost for the final option is, roughly, $600,000.
6) EI Quito Park: This park has limited development potential because of its
size-though it is possible to fit a 60yd. by 100yd. soccer field at a diagonal.
However, two development options were discussed. The first called for a
level 2b field renovation of the field area. The rough cost for this option is
$150,000. The second option called for a level 3 field upgrade. This would
include upgrades to the existing backstop facilities, as well as a complete
field "overhaul." The rough cost associated with this option is $400,000.
There are also a number of other items which need to be addressed at this
site, but which are not part of the above costs.
7) Argonaut Elem.: This is another project site with limited potential due to size.
Two development options were presented. The first option was to simply
complete a moderate renovation of the existing turf in order to increase the
quality of the playing surface. The rough cost would be $100,000. The
F:Wobs9819t1-12 Saratoga ConsuftinglTask Force #31TF#3Meeting Report.doc '4
B E A L S L ', V I) 5 C' A P E A R C li ( I' f: (' T f_ R f:, ( V ('
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• second option would include upgrading/relocating the existing backstop and
expanding the turf area, slightly. This second option would cost, roughly,
$275,000, and would provide another premier turf playing surface with a
"formal" baseball facility.
8) Redwood Middle: It was felt that there was little benefit to doing any
development on the upper field at this site. The field was renovated 4 years
ago, and is in fairly good condition. On the other hand, the lower baseball
diamond--which is rarely used--was seen to have some potential.
Accordingly, two proposals were discussed. One was to upgrade the current
facility to a higher standard, to be used by younger players. The rough cost
for this option is $100,000. The other alternative is to tear out the backstop
and simply turn the whole space into either turf or hardscape. In either case
the cost would be roughly $100,000.
9) Macauliffe Elem.: Similarly, it was felt that there was not much potential at this
site. The field is as large as it is going to get, and, in this case, it is
impossible to have a dirt infield, and have agame-size soccer field. There is
also no "real" benefit to the City for contributing funds for development.
However, the site is in a good location, so it was discussed. The cost to
renovate the turf was given as roughly $100,000 for level 2b, or $300,00 for
level 3.
10) Saratoga Elem.: The severely restricted size of this site makes any
development for sports use--other than for practice-next to impossible. Due
to this fact, and the lack of any "real" benefit to the City for contributing
money for development, no proposals were discussed for this site.
The list below shows the "final" project prioritization recommended by Task Force
members, and rough costs associated with each project.
Project Cost
1) Blue Hills/Azule $1,300,000, or whatever it takes--including
allowance for parking, etc.
2) Marshall Lane Elementary $180,000
3) Foothill Elementary $95,000 (if the budget is $7.2 million)
4) Congress Springs $300,000 (if the budget is $7.2 million)
or
3) Congress Springs
4) Foothill Elementary
•
5) Argonaut Elementary
6) Macauliffe Elementary
7) Kevin Moran Park (*see note)
8) EI Quito Park
9) Redwood Middle
10) Saratoga. Elementary
$300,000 (if the budget is $1.5 million)
$95,000 (if the budget is $1.2 million)
• ="
$100,000
$100,000
$600,000
$150,000
$100,000
"NOTE-The Task Force was obligated to consider Kevin Moran Park because it was
F:Uobs98198.12 Saratoga Consuaing~Task Force #31TF#3Meeting Report.doc 5
E3 E A L S L A N U S C A P E A R C H 1 T E C T L' R E, 1 ~! C
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
• one of the study sites. However, its low ranking reflects the Task Force members'
concern for the surrounding neighborhood, which has voiced strong opposition to any
development.
It was also felt that all 10 sites should be included in the list--regardless of how much or
how little money was "allocated" to the project--so that along-term picture could be seen
which would then form the backbone of a long-range plan which might seek additional
funding at a later date. Members felt that once the prioritized list was in place, then
additional funding could come when it might.
With regard to the Blue Hills/Azule project, it was felt that the only way to appropriately
address this site was to consider the whole package-this would include all of the field
areas, expansion of asphalt play area at the school, relocation of portable classrooms (if
necessary), expansion of parking, etc.
III. DISCUSSION OF LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
A. Following the prioritization of the projects above, the Task Force members briefly
discussed alternative partnering arrangements given these possible scenarios.
Comments are shown below.
It was recommended--and generally agreed upon by all Task Force members--that the
City put in all the development funds, and that the School Districts--where applicable--be
responsible for bearing the burden of maintenance. In the case of joint City/School
District sites--such as Blue Hills/Azule--the maintenance cost would be split between
each, but there would be an agreement detailing which one of the two actually
performed the maintenance. This agreement would also detail the standards to which
the fields are to be maintained, how and when they would be checked, penalties for
failure to uphold the agreement--if any, etc.
It was noted that if the School District maintained the sites, then they had the right to
include or exclude any users, and that they could also charge them fees.
One of the final discussions centered on the issues of scheduling and facilitation. The
idea of forming aNot-for-profit, 501-c3, organization was again brought up. Creating
such a group would ensure that each of the various user groups with a stake in the
fields within the City of Saratoga would have equal representation in a body which
performed, among other things: scheduling of all the fields; evaluating--with the City
and/or School District(s) the functioning of the lease/maintenance agreements;
fundraising; and fund expenditure.
Two of these points were considered very important: 1) That there needed to be a
more effective and efficient way of scheduling the use of the available fields; and 2)
That such an organization would not be restricted in its fundraising endeavors, as are
the City and School Districts. There is a great deal of funding available to non-profit
groups-especially when they have youth and community development at their cores.
Regarding the first point, a draft schedule was passed out which attempted to show--
based on information gathered during the project--which groups were using which fields
at which time of year and at what time of day. tt is presumed that this schedule will have
F:Wobs9819&12 Saratoga Consufling\Task Force #3\TF#3Meeting Report.doc 6
B E \ L. S I_ A ti D S C A P F A R C N I T E C I' L" R F., I V
C
•
Meeting Minutes for: Task Force Meeting #3 Project Name: City of Saratoga Park
Development
Meeting Date: 8.19.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga Community Library
minor "holes" in it, and it is hoped that the user groups will evaluate the schedule and
inform Jeff Kreps at Beals if there are any adjustments. The schedule is important to
providing the a view of the "global balance" mentioned above.
IV. NEXT STEPS
A. Action Items
Item Action Kesponsip/e F'a
1) Meeting minutes, site summaries with associated Provide before next meeting BLAi
costs, prioritized list of projects, summary of
lease/maintenance discussion.
2) Aerials of sites intended for closer design study
I, 3) Refined designs for certain selected sites
4) Revised scope of work.
5) Examples of "schematic design" level.
Acquire before next meeting ~ City
Finish before next meeting ~ BLAi
Provide to City ~ BLAi
Provide to City ( BLAi
V. NEXT MEETING
A. The date for the next Task Force meeting has yet to be determined. All Task Force
members will be notified as soon as a revised schedule is set.
End of Report
•
F:Wobs9819&12 Saratoga ConsuttinglTask Force #31TF#3Meeting Report.doc
7
li F: \ L S L ,A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T C R E, f V C;.
~~iP
City of Saratoga Park Develoament
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS-
1) Do nothing: Maintenance costs and regimen will, at best, remain static in the short
run, but will surely rise in the long run. Safety will continue to deteriorate, and
"playability" will decline.
Approximate time fields out of service: None
Maintenance benefits: None
2a) Minimal field renovation: A topical renovation consisting of weed eradication,
core-aeration (in which the machine extracts "cores" to improve air/water/nutrient
penetration and enhanced root growth), limited leveling of field using sand (avg. 1/2"
over the whole site), and over-seeding.
Approximate time fields out of service: 60-90 days
Maintenance benefits:
1) Creates a better stand of turf and a safer playing surface.
2) Easier to maintain due to reduction of problem areas such as holes,. and weeds.
2b) Moderate field renovation: All of the above, plus irrigation system replacement,
and the addition of an average of 2" of earth-to level the site-prior to core-aeration.
Approximate time fields out of service: 90-150 days
Maintenance benefits: In addition to those in 2a:
• 1) Improved drainage reducing puddling and erosion;
2) Top portion of the soil is more friable;
3) Adequate irrigation coverage will promote uniform growth;
4) Maintenance costs to repair or replace parts of the irrigation system will drop;
5) Costs to renovate the field will be reduced;
6) Increased irrigation efficiency reduces water costs.
3) Field ups~rade: A process entailing: killing all grass/weeds and re-watering
(repeated 3 times-this takes 6-8 weeks, during the summer); re-grading the site--
adding any additional drainage structures and irrigation system components--and then
re-compacting to 85% (at this point, any hard surfaces--such as concrete walks,
mowbands, etc.-would be constructed); ripping and disc-ing the site in 2 directions, 10-
12" deep to "fluff up" the soil; applying an average of approximately 2" of soil
amendments and fertilizer; roto-tilling; fine grading; seeding; and upgrades to infields
and site furnishings (such as new fabric for backstops, bleachers, trash cans, additional
fencing, etc.).
Approximate time fields out of service: 9 to 12 mos.-from design through construction
Maintenance benefits: Everything listed under 2a/b and including:
1) The creation of a porous top 12" layer for optimal root zone growth;
2) Amended, fertile soil in the top 6" for dense root growth;
3) A designed playing surface (conforming to the existing site situation) with
minimal to "no" drainage problems;
4) Safe, accessible, and adequate code-compliant site fumishings;
• 5) Should have addressed all safety issues.
All reduce maintenance because they create a more durable, healthy, and efficient site.
• 4) New field construction: Similar to the above with the exception of the demolition
and removal of any pre-existing site structures (such as backstops, asphalt, concrete,
etc.)-essentially, starting with a completely clean "slate."
Approximate time fields out of service: 12 to 15 mos.-from design through construction
Maintenance benefits: Everything mentioned above, and including:
1) A completely designed playing surface, with the perimeter being the only
constraint;
2) All new state-of-the-art site furnishings.
General note: all seeding must be done during the summer (approximately April to
October) to optimize establishment of root system.
•
•
rwi,f~ ~~~9F
Santa Clara Unified School District
• Maintenance and Construction Levels
February 1998
MAINTENANCE LEVELS
It was suggested throughout the Facilities Needs Task Force meetings-and the beginning of the
Grounds Committee Work-that a determination be made of the most appropriate prioritization of
construction in order to minimize maintenance needs, and that funds be made available for that
maintenance. It has been the opinion of the grounds committee that it would not be appropriate
to expend millions of dollars to upgrade and renovate school facility grounds if there is no
mechanism in place to maintain these projects at a level consistent with other open space and
recreational facilities in California. In order to have a reasonable understanding of the
maintenance level required for various types of sites, it is important to accurately assess the
level of use on the fields.
The following is an outline of the five levels of maintenance identified within the twenty-
• seven sites of the Santa Clara Unified School District. The levels are based on a 1-5 scale, with
1 being the least amount of effort required to properly maintain a specific site and 5 being the
most difficult, most expensive, and resource-intensive maintenance program required at a given
site. It should be pointed out that the following five levels are based on the fact that an adequate
baseline for any site consists of bringing the irrigation system up to current standards and
efficiency, and bringing the turf up to the best level by eliminating weeds. Therefore, when we
talk about the following maintenance levels we will, for the purpose of this report, assume that
any area discussed has been brought up to minimum standards of irrigation and turf renovation.
Level 1 Maintenance. The lowest level of maintenance would be practiced at sites
which do not require any turf maintenance. In the SCUSDistrict these would be considered areas
such as the school district offices and the Lawrence Center, next to the school district.
Level 2 Maintenance. This level of maintenance would be practiced at sites that have
not only planted areas, but also turf areas. Due to the nature of turf, it requires regular
• maintenance such as fertilization, watering and mowing. This regular maintenance regime would
11SERVERIPROJECTSUOBS98198-01 SANTA CLARA 9 SITESISITE INF01R CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE LEVELS 2-498.000
require the least effort in areas that have a lesser amount of use and/or are used by smaller
people (i.e. children). The size of the user is directly proportional to the required maintenance
because of the rate of compaction. A sixty-pound third grader has a lot less impact on a project
site's soil and turf than does atwo-hundred-pound senior in high school. The other factor
contributing to level 2 maintenance is how much the site is used outside of school programs.
Again, less use means less compaction, resulting in the least amount of required maintenance.
For the purposes of this report, generally we will say that the smaller elementary school sites with
3 to 5 acres of turf area would require level 2 maintenance. This is due primarily to the fact it is
very difficult for outside community users to accomplish any type of "organized" or team
events/games on this size turf area.
Level 3 maintenance. The general description of a site requiring level 3 maintenance
would be an area that has daily school use by a larger-size users and more than occasional use
by outside community groups. The other element contributing to a higher level of required
maintenance is the addition of athletic or sport facilities. Organized athletic sports facilities
require additional maintenance to ensure a site that provides safe and competitive play. Within
the school district, a site requiring level 3 maintenance generally would be any large elementary
school having a turf area of 5 to 10 acres, or a middle school. Typically, the turf areas are
larger, and there are intramural and other organized sports. The users are a little bit larger and
heavier, and the site has been designed to encourage community use for athletic events after
school, on week-ends and during the summer.
Level 4 Maintenance. The stepping up of maintenance regimes to this level is due to a
combination of user type and the level of manicuring required. This type of site requires a higher
degree of maintenance skill and requires more money be spent to adequately maintain it.
Typically, these are areas used by high school-level people competing in specific interscholastic
sports. This fourth maintenance level is primarily concentrated where there are large areas of
turf for general community and site-specific programs, as well as very specific athletic functions
such as football, baseball, softball, soccer, track, and other field sports. As one might infer, the
•
11SERVER\PROJECTSUOBS98198-07 SANTA CLARA 9 SITESISITE INFOIR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE LEVELS 2-4-98.DOC
concentration of level 4 facilities is at the two high school sites within the District -Santa Clara
and Wilcox.
Level 5 Maintenance. The highest level-with the highest resultant cost- includes all the
factors listed for level 4 and, in addition, adds significant community use. Faci{ities requiring
level 5 maintenance are, essentially, used 365 days a year, an average of six hours a day, and
by as many as five groups at one time. Because of this heavy, intensive use, the fields never
have a chance to rest. Therefore, the turf fields become compacted, wom and rutted, requiring
significant maintenance. In the cases of a high school, requiring level 4 maintenance, the
athletic facilities are very heavily used, but also receive breaks after the primary use season.
For level 5 areas, all facilities are used all-year round by one group or another. In fact, the
difference between level 5 and level 4 maintenance is not just one step up in effort, but
approximately three steps.
There are opportunities to reduce the level of maintenance required for each of these
sites through proper permitting and monitoring of usage. This will ensure that the number of
• permits issued respects the fact that the field must have some resting periods. Also, a proper
monitoring methodology needs to be in place to request those without permits to leave the sites
when they are not permitted for use. Examples of these sites span all facility types. For
example, the closed site Patrick Henry Elementary School has approximately 12 acres of turf
and is used continuously for soccer, softball practice, rugby practice and other community uses.
Wilson and Curtis Schools have approximately 15 to 20 acres of turf and, again, are used by
their respective communities all year long (with uses similar to those stated above re: Patrick
Henry), but in the case of Wilson, use also includes cricket.
The highest intensity of use would be the Peterson site. Asa previous high school site,
it is very large and has all the facilities that are needed by the middle school and the
community-including a football field, a track, a 90-foot baseball diamond, softball diamond and
six soccer fields. This particular site is used so intensely that it exceeds the typical six hours-a-
day use period by 1 1/2 hours-a total of approximately 7 YZ hours per day average use, 365
days per year. It is, by far, the costliest site re: maintenance that the school district currently has.
IISERVERIPROJECTSUOBS98198-01 SANTA CLARA 9 StTES1SITE INF01R CONSTRUCTION ANO MAINTENANCE LEVELS 2-498.DOC